Five Disputations of Church Government, Argument 9
Argum. 9. NO Episcopacy, (at least which hath so many evils as aforesaid attending it) which is not of Gods Institution, should be admitted into the Church. The late English Prelacy, as to the disapproved properties before mentioned, is not of Gods Institution: therefore it is not to be admitted into the Church.
The Major is confessed by all that plead for the Ius Divinum of Episcopacy, or most: and with the qualification, from the ill consequents, will be yielded by all.
The Minor I prove by parts: 1. That the exclusion of Presbyters from Rule, and the putting the Government from them into a Lay-mans hand, with the rest before mentioned, are not of Divine Institution, is proved already, as much as needs. 2. If at the present we yield a superintendency or preheminence of one Pastor before others, yet the Controversie remaineth, whether a Prelate should be only Parochial, that is, only the President of the Elders of one particular Church, or at the utmost of that with two or three, or a few neighbour small Parishes which he may well oversee, without the neglect of the Discipline. Now I know not how any man of that way can prove out of Scripture, that a Bishop must have more then one Parish, much less more then three or four, or a few. For it is confest by them, for ought I know, that Scripture doth not determine how many Presbyters, or Churches a Bishop must have under him, (only we say he must have but one:) for the main thing that they labour to prove is, that a Bishop is above Presbyters as to Ordination and Jurisdiction: and so he may be if he be a Parish-Bishop: for a Parish-Church may have a Curate, and 2 or 3 Chappels with Curates at them, besides Deacons; and according to the old course, perhaps many Presbyters more that did not publikely preach (though they wanted not authority) but oversee the flock. Now one man may have all that most of their Arguments require, if he be but the chief over this Parish Presbytery.
But perhaps they will say, that according to Scripture, every City only must have a Bishop, and therefore all the Country about must be his Diocess, though the number of Churches and Presbyters under him be not determined. To which I answer, that the word Only, is not in Scripture: no Text saith that it was Only in Cities that Churches or Bishops were to be seated. There is no prohibition of setling them in Villages.
It will be said, that There is no example of any Bishop but in a City. To which I answer. 1. Themselves ordinarily tell us in case of Sacrament gesture, and many other things, that examples do not alway bind affirmatively; much less can they prove that they bind negatively; I mean, not to do that which was not done. Can you prove in Scripture that there were any particular Churches or Assemblies for Sacraments and other worship in Villages? If not, then is it lawful now to have any? If not, then all our Parish Churches in the Country are unlawful. If yea, then why may we not have Bishops in the Countreys without Scripture example, as well as Churches? for we shall prove that the reasons why there were none or few Bishops in the Country, was for want of Churches for them to oversee. The Gospel was not then preached, nor any Bishops placed in many Nations of the world: it doth not follow therefore that there must be none since. 2. The reason is evident why Churches and Bishops were first planted in Cities; because there was the greatest Concourse of people▪ not that God loves a Citizen better then a Countrey-man, or that he will have his Churches so limited to soil, or place, or scituation: it is the number of persons whereever they live, that must be regarded, that the Church be not too great nor too small: but if there be the same number of people Cohabiting in the Countrey, as one of the Apostolical Churches did consist of, then there is the same reason to have a Church and Bishop in that Country Village, as was then for having one in a City. 3. Elders should be ordained in every Church, and therefore Bishops (for some of them say that these were Bishops) But Churches may be in Country Villages; therefore Elders and Bishops may be in Country-Villages. 4. I prove from Scripture that there were Bishops in Villages, or out of Cities, thus. Where there was a Church, there was a Bishop. But in a Village there was a Church; therefore. The Major I prove from Act. 14.23. compared with 1 Tim. 3. They ordained them Elders in every Church, or Church by Church: but these Elders are called Bishops in 1 Tim. 3. (and by some of that way maintained to be such▪)
For the Minor I prove it from Rom. 16.1. where there is mention of the Church at Cenchrea: but Cenchrea was no City, but as Grotius speaks, Portus Corinthiorum, ut Piraeus Atheniensium, viz. ad sinum Saronicum: apparet ibi Ecclesiam fuisse Christianorum. Grot. in Act. 18.18. & in Rom. 16.1. vide et Downam, Defens… pag. 105. who out of Strab… saith, it was the Port that served most properly for Asia. But Bishop Downam saith (ibid.) that Cenchrea was a Parish subordinate to the Church of Corinth, having not a Bishop or Presbytery, but a Presbyter assigned to it: so before he saith, by a Church, he means a Company of Chr…sti…ns ha…ing a Bishop and Presbytery.] But if he will so define a Church as that the Prelate shall enter the Definition, then he may well prove that every Church had a Prelate. And so a Patriarch may be proved to be Necessary to every Church, if you will say, you mean only such congregations as have a Patriarch. But it was denominated a Church, Act. 14.23. before they had Presbyters ordained to them, and so before fixed Bishops: when the Apostles had converted and congregated them, they were Churches. And the Text saith that they ordained them Elders in every Church, or Church by Church▪ and therefore Cenchrea being a Church, must have such Elders ordained to it, according to the Apostles Rule. And that it was a Parish with one Presbyter subject to Corinth, is all unproved, and therefore to no purpose.
5. Yet I prove that the English Prelacy on their own grounds, is not Iure Divino in that it is against the word of God, according to their own interpretation; of which next.